Siman 106

It has already been explained in siman 92 that the Rashba, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch ruled that we do not say "the piece itself becomes forbidden" regarding other prohibitions. According to this, if a piece of meat absorbed a forbidden substance and there is not sixty in the piece to nullify the forbidden substance and it became forbidden, and afterwards the piece fell into another pot, one does not need to measure sixty in the pot against the entire piece, but rather against the forbidden substance absorbed within it. According to this, there is reason to say that the piece also returns to its permitted status, since the forbidden substance was expelled from it into the pot and was nullified in sixty. Regarding this they said in the Gemara that there is a dispute whether "it is possible to squeeze it out" is forbidden or permitted. This matter of "it is possible to squeeze it out" and "the piece itself becomes forbidden" are one and the same matter. Since they ruled that we do not say "the piece itself becomes forbidden," it follows that "it is possible to squeeze it out" is permitted and the piece returns to its permitted status. And indeed, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled so there in section 4. This is his wording: They only said "the piece itself becomes forbidden" regarding meat and milk, but not regarding other prohibitions, such as a kezayit of fat that was absorbed in a piece and there is not sixty in it to nullify it and it became forbidden, and afterwards he cooked it with others, one only requires sixty against the kezayit of fat, and then even the piece itself returns to being permitted. Thus far his words. And we have already mentioned there in section 23 that in this siman he did not write so; see there where we reconciled that there he wrote according to the opinion of the Tur in this siman who indeed holds so, that the piece returns to its permitted status, but here he wrote according to the opinion of the Rashba [in Torat HaBayit, Bayit 4, Shaar 1] who holds that the piece remains in its forbidden status. And there the Ra'ah, of blessed memory, contested him [in Bedek HaBayit, see there], and so too the Tur contested him in this siman, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

This is the wording of the Tur: The Rashba wrote that even though a piece that absorbed a prohibited substance does not become nevelah and only prohibits according to the calculation of the prohibited substance within it, nevertheless, when it falls into a pot that has sixty to nullify the absorbed prohibited substance within it, the piece does not return to its original state to be permitted, because the prohibited substance within it is not entirely expelled from it and is not incorporated into the permitted substance in the pot. This is not the case with something that is incorporated and dissolved, for if blood or the like fell into a permitted broth and prohibited it due to its insufficiency, and the permitted broth was then increased until there was sixty in total to nullify the blood, everything is permitted, for everything is mixed and the prohibited substance is blended into the permitted substance. And I do not understand his words, for since everything joins together to nullify it, perforce the flavor is confused within the whole, and since it is confused within the whole, it is therefore nullified. Thus far the words of the Tur.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote regarding this in his great work, and this is his wording: And I say that I do not understand the words of our teacher who wrote that since everything joins together to nullify it, perforce the flavor becomes confused within the whole, meaning all the flavor of the forbidden substance absorbed in this piece is nullified among all the pieces; for from where does he have the basis to say so? For if it is because we require sixty against the entire forbidden substance, there is no proof from there, for even if it is clear to us that everything does not spread and become confused, we require sixty against its entirety, as we say regarding kachal [97b]: we measure by itself, for if we measured by what emerges from it, how would we know? And so too here it is similar. Therefore, certainly the words of the Rashba are primary. Thus far his words. And he ruled in the Shulchan Aruch accordingly, and this is his wording: A piece that absorbed a forbidden substance and does not have sixty to nullify it, which fell into a pot, does not forbid except according to the proportion of the forbidden substance within it; so that if there is in what is in the pot, joined with the piece itself, sixty against the forbidden substance absorbed within it, what is in the pot is permitted. But the piece itself is forbidden because the forbidden substance within it does not exit from it completely, which is not the case with something that is mixed and dissolved, etc. Thus far his words.

The commentators of the Tur challenged him and wrote that the dispute between the Rashba and the Tur is whether chanan and efshar lesochto are one and the same matter. Indeed, the Tur explicitly holds so in siman 92, see there. If so, it follows that since we do not say chanan regarding other prohibited substances, it necessarily follows that efshar lesochto is permitted. However, the Rashba holds that it is possible that we do not say chanan and yet efshar lesochto is prohibited [Bach and Derisha]. And behold, truly in the sugya of a drop of milk [108b] it is explicitly explained that they are one and the same matter, for it says there regarding the dispute of efshar lesochto that it is a dispute of Tannaim, and it brings Tannaim who disagree on the matter of chanan. Why did the Shas not reject this by saying they are unrelated to one another, and it could be that even if we do not say chanan, nevertheless efshar lesochto is prohibited [Kereti U'Peleti, subsection 1]? Unless we distinguish by saying that there we are dealing with basar be-chalav, and regarding basar be-chalav they are one and the same matter; for since in basar be-chalav only the combination causes the prohibition, if so, if we say there is no chanan, it must be said that efshar lesochto is permitted, for if not so, the combination remains and it becomes nevelah [ibid.]. And likewise, the one who holds chanan must hold that efshar lesochto is prohibited, for if not so, what prohibition is there here? But regarding other prohibited substances, it could be that even though we do not say chanan and one only requires sixty against the absorbed prohibited substance, nevertheless it is possible to say that efshar lesochto is prohibited; for even if the prohibited substance remains there, nevertheless it does not become nevelah, since the combination is not what causes the prohibition.

And one also should not ask regarding this matter on the core of the issue, how it is possible to say that we do not say chanan and yet "it is possible to squeeze it out" is forbidden, for if so, let a kapila taste it and say if it contains the taste of the forbidden substance or not; granted if we say chanan, tasting is not relevant since the permitted substance became forbidden, but if we do not say chanan, it is difficult. However, regarding this, the Ramban, of blessed memory, already answered the Rashba, of blessed memory [in the Responsa, siman 151], that since it was already forbidden, even though some of the forbidden substance within it was emitted, it is forever forbidden until it is emitted entirely, and it is not similar to a thing that is mixed, which blends into the whole from the beginning equally [see the Beit Yosef; and the Chavot Daat, subsection 1, labored over this difficulty and went a distant path according to the words of the Mordechai regarding a yevama who spat blood, that when the permitted substance was not recognizable it is not nullified by a majority, and when the forbidden substance is within the permitted substance, even without chanan the permitted substance turns into forbidden substance, and therefore even after it exited and a small amount remained, the permitted substance does not nullify it since previously the permitted substance was not recognizable as it too was forbidden, and regarding meat in milk this is not relevant; see there, for his words are forced, and I wonder, for did the Ramban not answer well as I have written, and examine this].

However, regarding the primary wonderment of the Tur concerning the Rashba, it must be understood, for even in the Gemara they said so regarding udder, that the udder is counted in the tally to join for nullification, yet the udder itself is forbidden, and if it fell into another pot, it also forbids [97b]. And behold, these are the very words of the Rashba. Indeed, the Rashba, of blessed memory, in his book Mishmeret HaBayit, brought proof for his words from this sugya. And it must be said that the Tur maintains that it is not comparable to there, as the Ra'ah, of blessed memory, challenged the Rashba [ibid.], for regarding udder they explicitly said there that the sages rendered it like a piece of nevelah, implying that without this, it would be impossible to forbid it. And since we say there is no chanan in other prohibitions, it follows that this piece is also permitted. Furthermore, one can distinguish from udder, for there it is basar be-chalav, regarding which we say chanan, and even though it is rabbinic, whatever the sages ordained, they ordained similar to a Torah law [Taz, subsection 1]. But the Rashba maintains the reason for the prohibition in udder is because we are concerned lest it did not previously expel all its milk, and if so, the same applies to all prohibitions [ibid.]. And our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, truly labored over the sugya of udder, for since the udder itself is forbidden, how do we join the udder to the tally of nullification? And they answered, see there. And this is not relevant to other prohibitions, and their words tend more toward the opinion of the Tur regarding other prohibitions; see there well.

And in my humble opinion, a different intention appears in their words, for certainly the Rashba also holds that chanan and "it is possible to squeeze it out" are one matter, and if there is no chanan, "it is possible to squeeze it out" is permitted. However, he explains that it is only "possible to squeeze it out," meaning that it is possible that the forbidden substance was squeezed out from it and possible that it was not squeezed out. And in the Gemara, it says only that since it is possible to squeeze it out, it is permitted; consequently, there is no chanan even if it was not completely squeezed out from it. And this is only a practical difference regarding that piece itself, that it should be forbidden according to the words of the Rashba, whereas the Gemara is dealing with the matter of not requiring sixty against the entire piece. And the Tur holds like the explanation of Rashi, that "it is possible to squeeze it out" means that the absorbed forbidden substance was distributed to all of them equally, and consequently it returns to its permitted status. And the Rashba holds that there is a doubt in the matter [and therefore the Beit Yosef did not mention this point of "it is possible to squeeze it out" at all, and with this it is settled what he wrote in siman 92, that the piece returns to its fitness, meaning according to the essential law if it is squeezed out completely, and here because of doubt he forbade it; and perhaps if they truly press it well by hand, it is possible they would agree to permit it, and there is no practical difference in this, for according to us we established the rule of chanan].

And behold, in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch it is not explicitly explained what the law is when the piece fell once again into a pot, whether we require sixty against the absorbed forbidden substance as in the previous falling or not; for granted that we forbade the piece due to the doubt, however, we should not forbid another pot because of this doubt. However, from the words of the Rashba in Mishmeret HaBayit it appears explicitly that even in another pot it forbids as before, and also regarding that of kakhal the sages, of blessed memory, said that it forbids in another pot. And even though there is room to distinguish between them, nevertheless, since the Rashba holds so and also regarding kakhal it is stated so in the Gemara, such is the halacha. And particularly for us there is no practical difference since we maintain chanan [see Tosafot in the sugya of kakhal, starting with the words "Rather"].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: According to what we are accustomed to saying regarding all prohibitions, that "the piece itself becomes a carcass," there is no difference between a liquid substance and a dry substance, except regarding this matter: that if the forbidden substance is already a dry substance and there is sixty against it, the piece that was initially forbidden remains in its forbidden state and one must remove it from there if he recognizes it; and if he does not recognize it, it is nullified if it is not a "piece fit to be served to guests." But if it is a liquid substance, everything is permitted, since there is sixty against that which was initially forbidden. Thus far his words.

And his words are perplexing, for even according to the author there is no difference between liquid and dry except regarding this matter: that the dry always remains in its state of prohibition and the liquid returns to a state of permission. On the contrary, for us there is an even greater distinction, such as in a case of great loss where we do not say chanan in liquid, as written in siman 92; if so, in dry we require sixty against everything and in liquid we do not require it [Pri Megadim, subsection 3]. And there is one who explained that this is what he meant: that for the one who would think that in liquid we do not say chanan at all, there is a great difference, but according to what we practice to say chanan even in liquid, there is no difference except regarding this matter [ibid.]. And according to this, the main point is missing from his words and his wording is not settled. Therefore, it appears to me that this is what he meant: behold, according to the author there is a difference between liquid and dry regarding when there is enough in the pot to nullify the absorbed prohibition and not the entire piece, for even in such a case, in dry the piece is prohibited, and in liquid, when the broth has increased until there is enough among all of it to nullify the previous prohibition, everything is permitted; even if there is not enough to nullify all the previous broth, there is no practical difference in this, and even in liquid it is prohibited in such a case and everything becomes nevelah. And the difference between liquid and dry is only regarding this matter: that in dry, even if there is sixty against the entire piece, nevertheless the piece remains in its state of prohibition, and in liquid, when there is sixty against all the previous broth, everything is permitted [and this is without a case of great loss, but in a case of great loss we do not say chanan in liquid at all, and therefore it depends on the custom, for behold in dry, by the letter of the law, we say chanan; and see Rosh Yosef, subsection 2, who distinguishes in liquid between hot and cold, but this is not implied by all the poskim, see there and delve into it].

And that which he wrote, that if he does not recognize it, it is nullified if it is not a chatichah hareuyah lehitchabed, this is only regarding basar be-chalav, which is considered like the essence of the forbidden substance. However, regarding other forbidden substances absorbed in permitted food, chatichah hareuyah lehitchabed does not apply to an absorbed forbidden substance, as I wrote in siman 101, since its prohibition is not due to itself [Shach, subsection 4]. And the measure of his words is as follows: according to what we are accustomed to saying chatichah na'asait nevelah regarding all forbidden substances, if so, they are all equal to basar be-chalav, and there is no distinction between them regarding the matter of liquid and dry. Only in this is there a distinction: that if the forbidden item is a dry thing and there is sixty against it, then both in basar be-chalav and in other forbidden substances, the piece that was forbidden first remains in its prohibition and one must remove it from there if he recognizes it; and if he does not recognize it, it is nullified even in basar be-chalav if it is not a chatichah hareuyah lehitchabed. But if it is a liquid thing, both in basar be-chalav and in other forbidden substances, everything is permitted when there is sixty against everything that was forbidden first [ibid.].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 2: A piece containing chelev that was cooked in a pot that has sixty to nullify the chelev, one must be careful not to remove anything from the pot while the piece of prohibition is inside it, for we fear perhaps there will remain at the end a time when there is not sixty in the pot to nullify all the chelev, and it will prohibit what is in the pot. Furthermore, he should not remove it first, because the chelev within it will prohibit it [when he removes it hot and it does not have enough to nullify the chelev]. And what is its remedy? He should leave it until the pot cools. Thus far their words. And this is even according to the opinion of the Tur, who disagrees with the Rashba in the previous law and holds that a piece that has absorbed a prohibition, when it falls into a pot that has sixty to nullify the absorbed prohibition, the piece also returns to its permitted status. If so, here too, where there is sixty in the entire pot to nullify the chelev, the piece should no longer be prohibited? This is not comparable, for certainly regarding an absorbed prohibition we say that the absorbed substance exited and spread throughout the entire pot, but regarding chelev itself, it is not nullified, and even though there is sixty against it, it returns and prohibits [Tur]. And when it falls into another pot, this is no novelty at all, for it creates a new discharge; rather, the novelty is in that same pot where it already discharged everything it was capable of discharging, and I would have said that even if the piece is outside the pot and it is hot, it will not discharge further, for it already discharged everything it was capable of while it was in the pot and was nullified in sixty; and it comes to teach us that even this is considered like another pot and it creates a new discharge [Taz, end of subsection 1].

It is clear from their words that if they leave the pot until it cools, even the piece that the chelev is attached to will be permitted; they should cut away the chelev and the meat is permitted. This is not similar to the previous law where the piece that absorbed from a prohibited substance remains prohibited forever according to the opinion of the Rashba and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, for there the piece was already prohibited through absorption and it does not expel all the absorbed prohibition as has been explained. This is not the case here, where the piece itself had not yet absorbed from the chelev, and when did it absorb? While it was in the pot, and then the expulsion spread equally to the piece and to the entire pot according to their view, as they do not hold of chaticha na'aseit neveila regarding other prohibitions and an attached prohibition (ibid. subsection 2). One should not ask: but was the piece not already prohibited from the chelev through salting? For it can be said that it was lean chelev, which only prohibits a thin layer, or that there was sixty in the piece against the chelev and before the cooking they cut from it and sixty did not remain (Shach subsection 5). All of this is according to the one who does not hold of chaticha na'aseit neveila regarding other prohibitions, but according to us, the piece is forever prohibited because of an attached prohibition. Therefore, on the contrary, they should not leave it until it cools, for why should we leave the prohibited piece in the pot for no reason? Therefore, they should immediately remove the piece that the chelev is attached to from there and discard it, and the entire pot is permitted if there is sixty in the pot against the entire piece, for according to us, sixty against the chelev is not effective, according to the law of an attached prohibition. If there is not sixty against the entire piece, the entire pot is prohibited. Also according to us, the entire piece was already prohibited from salting when there was not sixty in the piece against the chelev, for we do not distinguish between lean and fat as written in siman 105. It is obvious that when he removes the piece from the boiling pot, he should not remove it with a spoon but with a splinter, for if he removes it with a spoon, the spoon will become prohibited from the prohibited piece, and he should also be careful that the piece does not touch the pot, for if it touches, it will prohibit that place (Pri Megadim). If the pot does not have sixty against the place that the piece touched, the pot will be prohibited. [When the Rema wrote chaticha na'aseit neveila, his intention was to an attached prohibition, but because an attached prohibition depends on chaticha na'aseit neveila as is understood, he therefore wrote this term, which we discuss in these simanim; and observe carefully].

And similarly, a new pot or one that is not "ben yomo" that absorbed a kezayit of milk or blood or another prohibited substance, and the pot became prohibited, and they cooked in it on that same day a cooked food that has sixty times against the prohibited substance it absorbed; and if so, the cooked food is permitted. However, one must be careful not to take a small amount of the cooked food from the pot, for perhaps the cooked food will be diminished from sixty against the prohibited substance and the cooked food will become prohibited. Therefore, he should be careful to leave the cooked food in it until it cools, and this is also for us, understood [ibid.]:

And according to reason, all the laws that were explained regarding cooking apply to pickling and salting. For example, if a prohibited substance and a permitted substance were pickled together and there was not sixty in the permitted substance against the prohibited substance, and afterwards more of the permitted substance was added unintentionally until there was sixty, nevertheless, the initial permitted substance that was forbidden does not return to its permitted state, even in a case of great loss. And so too regarding salting; only regarding salting in a case of great loss is there room to permit it by peeling [there in the Magen Avraham, subsection 2], as I wrote in siman 105. And so too, a prohibited substance that was mixed in a pot and there was sixty against the prohibited substance, but they did not remove the prohibited substance, and the pot cooled, and they removed some of the permitted substance until there did not remain sixty against the prohibited substance, and it stood a full day with the prohibited substance, it becomes pickled, and everything in the pot becomes forbidden along with the pot. And we do not say that it does not add absorption through pickling beyond what it absorbed previously through cooking. And so too, a grain of wheat that was in a cooked dish that was cooked before Pesach and was nullified in sixty, but they did not remove the wheat, and it stood with the cooked dish during Pesach cold for twenty-four hours, it is forbidden, for pickling is like cooking, and on Pesach the prohibition is in any amount [Tiferet Zvi, section 24].